Issue #1 

The first issue to be considered is whether Marcus is liable in the tort of

negligence for hitting Julia a, pedestrian with his motorcycle. 
 
Rule 
The first element of negligence is that there must be a duty of care owed by the
defendant to the claimant. All motorists owe a duty of care to other motorists,
pedestrians, passengers and owners of property close to the road to take
reasonable care when driving on the road. The case of Donohuge v Stevenson
(1932) established the neighbour principle which requires you to take
reasonable precautions to avoid acts or omissions that you may reasonably
anticipate would cause harm to your neighbor.1 Per Lord Atkin, ‘persons who
are so closely and directly affected by (the defendant’s) act that (he/she/it) ought
to have them in contemplation as being so affected when…(the defendant)…
(directs his)…mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question’2 
 
Secondly, there must be a breach of said duty to consitute the tort of negligence.
When considering if the defendant breached their duty of care the question to be
answered is ‘Would a reasonable person have acted in a similar way as the
defendant?’. In the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.(1856), Baron
Alderson stated that, ‘negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do’3 
 
Thirdly, it should be considered if the breach was the operative cause to the
claimant’s injuries. The two element that are be applied to answer this question
is ‘Causation of fact’ or ‘Remoteness of damage in law’ 
 
Fourthly, to find the defendant liable for negligence the remoteness of the
incident should be considered. The question to be answered is “Was the damage
caused reasonably foreseeable from the defendant’s breach?” Wagon Mound
No 1 in this case it was determined that the defendant will be held accountable
only if it was reasonable to expect the kind or class of damage that occurred.4 
 
Application 
Marcus owed a duty of care to Julia who in this situation would be considered
his neighbor, as all motorists have a duty of care to pedestrians to exercise
reasonable care to prevent causing injury to people on the road5.  This duty was
breached when Marcus negligently decides to do ‘wheelies’ on the public road
one Sunday afternoon which a reasonable person would not have done. ‘But-
for’ Marcus doing ‘wheelies’ he would not have lost control over the
motorcycle and hit Julia. Marcus should have foreseen that if he did not take
proper care on the public road, he could have injured a pedestrian. 
 
Conclusion 
I would advise Marcus that he can be held liable for the injuries Julia sustained
from being hit by his motorcycle as he was driving negligently.